Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-07-09


! firmly plant themselves. For while the
present law may not be sll that could be
desired in the fields of regulative legisla-
ton, it is good start in the right direc-
ton. It has formulated in statutory dec
larations the wise provisions of the COM
mon law relative to carriers, has provided
some special remedies in cases OF nom
observance of its injunctions, and, better
and more efficient still, has established
penal sanctions TO enfoTceiobedience.
In the first section of the law it is pro-
vided that:
All charges made for any service rem
dered or 10 be rendered in the Transport
tation of passengers or property as atOre-
said, or in connection herewith, or for
receiving, delivering, storage, or hand
ling Of such property, shall be reasonable
and just; and every unjust or unreason-
able charge for such service is prohibited
end declared TO be unlawful.
Now, while the rule Of reasonable and
lust charge here declared is not new, the
methods of its enforcement provided by
the act practically gives It that character,
and especially is this the case waen con-
sidered in connection with the penal
sanctions contained in the tenth section
OF the act, 20 which l will refer
more definitely hereafter, in respect
of its application 20 the clause Of the Girst
section above quoted and to the other
sections which l will proceed to consider.
The second section of the act was as
follows:
Sec. =. That If sng common carrier sub
jeCt to the provisions Of this act shsll,
directly or indirectly, by any special rate,
rebate, drawback, or other device, charge,
demsnd, collect, or receive from any per
son or persons greater or less compGn-
sation for any service rendered or TO be
rendered, in the transportation Of passen-
gers or property, subject to the proYis-
Ions of this act, than II charges, demands,
collects, or receives from any other per-
son or persons for doing for him or them
q ike and cOntemporaneous serv-
ice il the transportation of q like
KIND of traffic under substantially
similar circumstances and conditions,
such common carrier shall be deemed
guilty Of unjust discrimination, which is
hereby prohibited and declared to be IN
lawful.
Surely, it would be difficult to make
any person possessed Of en- average de
gree of intelligence believe that this sec
ton is involved IN its construction, or
that it is difficult TO understand it.
Now, let us take the third section and
see whether or not it is obnoxious to the
charge of obscure and involved construc-
ton. 1t reads as follows:
Sec. 8. That it shall be unlawful for
any common carrier subject C the pro-
visions OF this act to make or give eny
undue or unreasonable preference or adj
vantage to any particular person, com
| pany, firm, corporation, or locality, or
/ sny particular description Of traffic, in
any respect whatsoever, or to subject any
! particular person, company, firm, cor
| pOration, or locality, or any particular
description Of traffic, TO any undue or IN
/ reasonable prejudice or disadvantage in
any respect whatsoever.
/ Every common carrier subject to the
! provisions OF this act shall, according to
J their respective powers, afford all rea-
! sonabie, proper, and equal facilities for
/ the interchange Of traffic between their
| respective lines, and fer the receiving,
/ forwarding, delivering of passengers and
| property to and from their several lines
! and those connecting Herewith, and shall
not discriminate in their rates and charges
| between such connecting lines; but this
/ shall not be construed as requiring any
such common carrier 20 give the use Of
! its tracks or terminal facilities to snother
carrier engaged IN like business.
There is not railroad official in the
! United States VINO would not deem him
self insuited if any person should tel
! him that he has not sufficient intelligence
| to understand this section. Nor are the
| succeeding sections Of this act more diff
! tiCult Of Interpretation. Take even the
fourth section, about which so much has
! been said and written, and over which so
! much contention hiss been had Is it in
VOWED and difficult Of comprehension?
J 1t reads as follows, viz:
! Sec. 8 That il shall be unlawful for
any common carrier subject TO the pro-
| visions OF this act 10 charge or receive
| any greater compensation in the sggTe-
| gate for the transportation of passengers
or Of like kind of property, under sub
stantially similar circumstances and con-
| ditiOGs, for shorter than for q longer
! distance over the same line, in the same
direction, the shorter being included
within the longer distance; but this shall
not be construed as authorizing any com
mon carrier within the terms of
this act TO charge and receive as
great compensation for C shorter
as for 6 longer distance; provided, how
GFCAg tudL upon dppl4CGtlOu 10 LlS COLu-
mission appointed under the provisions
Of this act, such common carrier may, in
special cases, after Investigation by the
commission, be authorized TO charge less
for longer tnaa for shorter distances for
the transportation of passengers or prop
ertY; and the commission may from time
to time prescribe the extent TO which
such designated common carrier may be
relieved from the operation of this sec
ton Of this act.
If railroad managers and officials do
not understand the real meaning of this
section, then how does it come to pass
that in their applications to the commits
sion to be relieved from its operation,
they so particularly, definitely and exactly
stste what will be its effect on their re-
spectiye companies? There is not one OF
said applications but retutes the pretense
that the section is involved, obscure, and
that its true meaning cannot be arrived
at. If the commission will but act with
one-half the perspiCuity presented by the
section itself and manifested by the rail
road representatives in their applications
for relief, there need be no serious diff
Guilty. Thus far it has not done so, as l
pointed uOt in my former communication